Let’s compare two of the most popular file types each for images, documents, and audio files. Understanding the main differences between these major file types will help you decide which one to use in the future.

Know Your File Formats

Most digital information today takes three major forms — text, sight, or sound. Whether you’re talking about web pages, movies, or any other form of entertainment, information is presented to the audience in one or more of those three.

So, if you’re a producer of information, how do you know what file format to use? The answer boils down to how you want to distribute or use that file.

Images: PNG vs. JPG

Many people use JPG and PNG files almost interchangeably, and don’t understand how they affect file sizes. However, more experienced users know that not only will smaller image sizes reduce overall server memory consumption, they’ll also increase page load speed.

File size is the major difference between JPG and PNG, but the reasons aren’t obvious until you take a closer look at the images themselves. Below is a picture of a forest scene in JPG format.

Advertisement

This is a large image — over 1,000 pixels wide — and features vibrant colors and details. JPG (which stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group) has always been a popular image type for photographers sharing their work online12 Most Profitable Places to Sell Your Photos Online12 Most Profitable Places to Sell Your Photos OnlineIf you have photos that you want to sell, there are a number of websites that can help you. Here are 12 of the best.Read More. This is due to the fact that the compression of highly-detailed images involves finding redundancies in those files and compressing the data. Thus, beautiful images like the one above can still be presented with little quality loss. The resulting file size is a fraction of the original that may come straight from a digital camera.

However, because of the compression method, JPGs have some issues with contrasting edges in photos. This is most prevalent with text, signs, and the like. But if you zoom in far enough even into a high-quality image like the one above, you can see the quality reduction along those straight edges in the form of a “shadow” along the edge.

After saving the file multiple times, you can see the quality of the image reduce even further when you zoom back in. In this case, the meshing between edges becomes more pronounced, and you can see near highly-contrasting colors that there’s a greater amount of distortion.

The PNG Difference

Let’s next take a look at a highly-detailed PNG image of a park with strong contrasting black and white colors. Such an image would do a number to the JPG compression process. It isn’t too apparent from a distance, but much more obvious as you zoom in.

However, zooming into the PNG image, you can see that there’s no “shadow” effect or any significant distortion on the contrasting edges.

PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics, and was originally created as a replacement for the outdated GIF format. The PNG compression algorithm is non-lossyHow Does File Compression Work?How Does File Compression Work?File compression is at the core of how the modern web works, one could argue, because it allows us to share files that would otherwise take too long to transfer. But how does it work?Read More. When you save a PNG file again, the quality of the saved image is identical to the original.

Another huge benefit to PNG files is that they support image transparency. This allows you to use a transparent icon or image that blends seamlessly into a background without any ugly outline. See below the JPG image on the left, and the PNG image on the right over a blue background.

On the other hand, if you’re creating icons or images with sharp contrasting colors — like images with text for example — then go with a PNG. Also, PNG is particularly valuable in web design when you need transparent images. Just keep in mind that PNG file sizes are typically larger than JPGs, so plan accordingly.

Are PDFs Always the Best Choice?

So, it might seem that PDF is always the way to go when you want to distribute documents. You can embed them in web pages, work well for small eBook formats, and they transcend operating systems. Do they have any downsides?

Of course, the catch is that editing a PDF is clunky5 Free Tools to Edit PDF Files5 Free Tools to Edit PDF FilesPDFs are universally useful. However, they fall short when it comes to editing. We're here to show you the best free tools to edit your PDF files.Read More, and advanced editing requires expensive software. When you’re collaborating with someone on a project, it’s important to have the tools that Microsoft Word offers for editing and collaborating. So, there’s a place for the DOCX format in sharing documents, but it comes down to how you want to use that document and why you’re sharing it.

To take a closer look at this, we downloaded a free classical song in lossless FLAC format. Played in Audacity, it was apparent that the music was crisp and clear.

The first test was exporting the original recording as an MP3 file using the default Audacity export settings. Then, opening both files side-by-side, we took a closer look at the sound files.

You can see subtle differences when you look at them together. It isn’t quite as obvious in this snapshot, but if you look close, you can see that the graphs for the MP3 file (the bottom two tracks) are not quite as dark as the top FLAC graphs. This is most apparent in the first section of the graph, where the far edges of the response (shown by the first arrow) are definitely more defined in the FLAC file.

I didn’t notice a substantial difference when listening to the two audio files, but music recording experts might pick up on distinctions between them.

So, I tweaked this up to the maximum value — 320 kbps — and then repeated the exercise above.

This time, the differences between the FLAC track and the MP3 track were almost indistinguishable from each other. Given, the 320 kbps MP3 was much larger than the 128 kbps file — 12 MB versus 5 MB, but it was still half the size of the original 24 MB FLAC file. Again, in the image below find the MP3 track as the bottom two graphs and the FLAC track at the top.

However, if you’re a collector of music and you just want to store as much as possible on your portable player, MP3 is clearly the way to go. If you run a podcastHow To Start Your Own Successful PodcastHow To Start Your Own Successful PodcastPodcasts can be heard by millions of people worldwide. Now it's easier than ever to collaborate, record, edit, publish, and promote your own show. We show you how.Read More and want to ensure that your listeners are not waiting forever for an episode to download, MP3 is the best choice.

When preserving quality is of the utmost importance, a lossless format like FLAC or PNG works best. Universal, space-friendly formats like PDF and MP3 ensure the lightest strain for those viewing them, and the best compatibility.

Does this help with your own file format dilemmas? Do you have any other file formats you prefer above those mentioned above? Share your own thoughts and insights in the comments section below.

Also, if you're loading up a JPEG and re-saving it, you're obviously not a professional. The CORRECT way to edit a JPEG is to save the "work" file into something like a BMP, PSD or XCF (GIMP version of Photoshop's PSD), in an uncompressed format, and only "export" to JPEG once. This preserves the uncompressed image, along with any layers and history, and there will be no repeated loss of detail.

There's no real reason to use FLAC, especially with its huge file sizes. Anyone who says they can tell the difference between a well-produced MP3 and analog audio (vinyl or tape) is delusional.

It should be noted that there are quite a few better alternatives for MP3. Some of which with comparable file sizes and still better audio quality than MP3, some resulting in much bigger files but no information lost. Examples would be ogg, aac, flac, aiff or wav. Another, relatively new format would be opus (I think created by the people behind ogg).

TL;DR: Don't use MP3 for your own collection, even if you want a lossy format. There are far better options.

We understand that music addiction works as a surrogate for missing human bonds. Songs can pierce the heart directly; it requires no mediation. Weekly Tropical House mixtapes uploaded each and every Wednesday. Hear us on AudioMack!

Frankly compression formats except video are pointless in the age of broadband, but we keep using them because it's still quicker than downloading the raw image.

A distributor like Apple still uses compressed music because they are serving millions of users and they want to keep their (apple) data bill low. As a customer I'd much rather be receiving a decrompressed version of the music (I'm one of the people that can tell the difference between a high quality MP3 and the same song playing on compact disc).

"These days, website owners use JPG and PNG files almost interchangeably, and many bloggers on services like WordPress.org or Blogger and are completely oblivious to the effects of large image sizes will actually use those images interchangeably"
Letting this sentence get published made it a very poorly edited article

As a graphic designer i always send my clients sample graphics in PNG format. Although in PhotoShop you can save a JPG with the highest quality, you will always notice that there's still some compression. So as far as images are concerned, i'm more for PNG than JPG. Sometimes if i have several images to send to a client, i simply put everything in a single uncompressed PDF file.

For documents, i use PDF. When sending clients contracts, agreements etc... i always send these in PDF format. I have installed a kind of "driver" that i downloaded from http://www.pdf995.com/ . After my agreement/contract etc... is ready in MS Word, i simply click on File > Print, choose the PDF Driver and a PDF file will be created.

To show differences you should use the same picture. Also it would be nice if you compared the .jpg vs .png file sizes for the same picture. Today the .png is sometimes just like the old (I hope forgotten) .bmp-format.

If I send a friend a document I send them both rtf and also odf, I know that the Open document format is not widely used yet but it should be. In one of your responses to a comment you comment on the difficulty that people who use Microsuck's Office with being able to open files created in an earlier version of MS Office. This is typical of a company like MS, where they hook the average user and then continually rape them with version updates that use a different file type as their default and make the new program not able to be backward compatible. If I send someone a disk I send them the document in ODF and also include the latest download for Libre Office. I have had many very positive comments from people who have never heard of either Open Office or Libre Office. The scary thing for me is all the very important documents that have been created by various governments using MS Office over the years that think these files will be able to be opened and read by some distant future MS Office package and that assumes that MS will still be around in 50 to a hundred years. ODF should become the world standard, MS hates it because they cannot control this standard and because of it they would loose their cash cow.

Sorry you feel that statements of fact constitutes an anti MS rant. I am sorry that you cannot handle the truth about MS and MS Office. Since posting this reply way back in 2013 the ODF file format has become the standard and more and more European Countries and cities are using Libre Office that is available on every OS that runs on a laptop or desktop computer. No where in my post did I say that you should stop using MS Office, I only gave valid reasons to use programs that out put ODF file formats something that MS Office does not do. If you have never used or even looked at Libre Office I would encourage you to try it out because it will not cost you a dime, only the time to download it. Other free and very capable Open Source programs to try are The GIMP (similar to Photoshop with lots of tutorials on Youtube), Inkscape (similar to Corel Draw and Adobe Illistrator also with lots of Youtube tutortials, Scribus a very powerful and useful desktop publishing software, Krita very similar to Corel Painter that uses all of the Wacom and other drawing tablets, is great for fine art and the last one if you are interested in 3D modeling, rendering as well as animation is Blender.

The holy grail of document files (universally readable and writable) is .txt but it doesn't work with images or formatting, so if you need that use the similar .rtf format, which is almost as universal.

Bah. LibreOffice can read and write DOCX and XLSX, with some loss of features (most of which are edge use cases, with idiots using seldom-used features). OpenOffice lost market share because it wouldn't play nice with OfficeXML; LibreOffice leapfrogged them and took over. :)

TXT is hardly "universal," with the Windows (CR/LF) and Unix (LF) line ends, UTF-8 vs. ANSI vs. UCS-2; and neither is RTF, although many OSes can read it. If you want a "universal" document format, Adobe opened up the PDF standard some years ago, it includes images (although they can be degraded by being downsized during document preparation if you're not careful).

Corporate users will likely forbid either - an unknown, unproven converter, and won't allow OpenOffice or LibreOffice on their computers. Best to ASK before sending!

Mar Viv

February 7, 2013 at 9:28 pm

I never really thought about all this until now, I always wanted to know the difference between flac and mp3 but never really felt the need to find the difference. Thank you for this insight. Love your articles Ryan.

You might not hear the difference in most new recent material if you are not trained and with proper (good) audio equipment, as currently, because radio loudness war and Mp3 popularity, most recordings are already overly compressed, but if you look into older material you will probably hear the difference. Try Phil Collins "In the air tonight" in FLAC and Mp3 and you will.

Human ears usualy cant hear those noises that are removed with mp3 V0 which better in many ways than any constant mp3 bitrate.

ReadandShare

February 7, 2013 at 8:02 pm

+1 to Fred Conover's comment above.

Not just quibbling with grammar, but the comparison between JPG and PNG is downright confusing to me. So JPG is good except when there are sharp edges? And if PNG is good for sharp edges then why isn't it also good for big, beautiful, crisp images? I assume that it's because PNG takes up more space? But that wasn't spelled out.

"...These days, website owners use JPG and PNG files almost interchangeably, and many bloggers on services like WordPress.org or Blogger and are completely oblivious to the effects of large image sizes will actually use those images interchangeably..." <== Desperately needs to be reworded, please.

Ben is MakeUseOf's Gaming section editor and Creative Co-director. He holds a B.S. in Computer Information Systems from Grove City College, where he graduated Cum Laude and with Honors in his major. He's currently focusing on ramping up MUO's Gaming content to appeal to gamers both casual and hardcore.